I meant the "conduit" would not need to change. Not the cable. The cable obviously needs to change with some frequency. But the conduit so long as it was large enough could remain the same for hundreds of years.
1. No the cable wouldn't need to change. The British are currently running fiber through Victorian sewer pipes. So... no. The conduit doesn't need to change. All it needs is enough space in it. That's it. So the only thing that could happen is that the could run out of room. But that is something you could upgrade the next time you do road maintenance.
2. As to the government not needing to do the innovation, they would need to approve things.
Look, the government providing my internet access is a non-starter. You've seen all the privacy abuse stuff they've done already. If they actually own the cables it will be even worse. And that is just ONE reason amongst many. It is a bad idea.
No.
As to letting each person run cable, I'm not saying that 10 million people run cable. I'm saying that you let small ISPs run the cable if they pay the conduit fee.
There is always this notion that anything but the government controlling it means chaos. Give me a break.
As to the government not running the internet but running the cable... the cable determines the bandwidth and much of the quality of service. So no.
The government can own and run the pipe the cable runs in... that's it. I'm not trusting them with anything beyond that.
The ADA is horribly abused and has been a gold mine for slimy trial lawyers for years.
So many of their rules are stupid. Take ramps for example, the rules are TWELVE FEET of distance for every FOOT of rise. That's 1/12... By this logic, half the streets in san francisco are in violation of the ADA... that is the fucking hills have grades that are steeper than that. It is stupid.
The ADA should generally be repealed. Most businesses want customers disabled or otherwise to feel comfortable there and use their services. That alone should be enough to see that most things are accessible. Yes, seriously disabled people are going to need help. Let us not pretend that if we cover the world with ramps that such people can live on their own without assistance. Who bathes them etc? And here you might sight some fellow that winches himself into the tub with pullies. Any such fellow isn't going to need a 1/12 ramp to get into a shop.
Being disabled sucks. But being disabled is not a license to force everyone in the rest of society to cover the world in bubblewrap.
I don't mind them providing the conduit. I do mind them providing the cable. the cable you must appreciate will change. there will be innovation.
it isn't like water or power or roads.
Road technology hasn't change much in the last 100 years. If your car had to drive on a paved road build to 19th century standards, it wouldn't be a big deal. They had asphalt back then.
Water is water is water. The fucking Romans could pipe water to your house and it would be about as good as what you get from the city. The biggest difference is that the water pressure would be a lot lower. But otherwise, it would be the same. All you would have to do to compensate would be to have a water tank over your house to pressurize the water. That's it.
Electricity hasn't change remarkably in the last 100 years. If I wired your house to the standards of 1910, you might have issues with some high voltage appliances but otherwise you'd mostly be fine especially if you had some surge protectors or some UPSs.
Network cable however is a moving target. It has changed remarkably in just the last 10 years to say nothing of the last 100. So no, I don't want to give it to the government because I'm pretty sure they'll sit on their asses once they get it working. It is generally what they do.
I do trust them to run a conduit though. It is just a pipe. Conduit technology hasn't changed remarkably in thousands of years. So... totally fine with them running the conduit. But not the cable.
That has to be private. I also question whether they'll offer the service at a competitive rate. Often government services only seem cheap because they're taking lots of money from someone else and charging you less. But the actual average fee is quite a bit higher than you'd imagine.
I'd also direct you to pot holes, spotting education systems, spotty police services, and other issues that the government has been doing a bad job at running lately. Here is my biggest problem with government.
You can't fire them. Yes, you can have an election but that doesn't really trigger a clean sweep does it? No. All you can do is vote for the red team or the blue team. And most people will only vote for the red or the blue and never the other. And most areas are solid red or blue which means they can pretty much do whatever they want and they won't even lose an election much less strip them out of power.
Part of the issue is that the government is very much a "too big to fail" system. Everything is combined. So if I don't like my internet service which you want the government to run, does that mean I vote for another mayor even though the only thing the current mayor is bad at is running the communication service? See the issue?
I don't want them to run it. I am fine with them running the conduit but never the cable.
Okay, respectfully, you're citing problems that only exist because we don't have a system set up to handle all those companies.
Effectively, your argument is "we can't do this because we're not doing this".
I know that isn't how you see your argument. However, your "I don't want people digging up the street" comment only makes sense if you assume no one would work out a reasonable way to do it.
For example, conduits. You just have a pipe that goes down the side of the street with regular access points. No digging up the street after the conduit is in the ground. It sits there like a water pipe or a gas main and people can run new cable or remove old cable without damaging the street.
Okay? Not a big deal. you can run 20 different independent cable networks at once through the same conduit... no problem.
They each pay a fee. Have the conduit supplied by the city. I think that is a legitimate utility, the supply of conduits and polls. But the cable should be private because the cable changes. It is subject to technological advance in a way that water or power isn't quite so much. I mean, electricity is electricity. Water is water. But bandwidth is not bandwidth. There have been huge advances in communications cable. It used to all be copper wires and now it is fiber optic cable.
If I ran a new ISP, I'd run nothing but fiber optic cable. It is cheaper than other cables, is longer ranged, and has higher bandwidth. Anyone laying copper cables at this point is either trapped into some legacy bullshit or an idiot.
As to the cost, you're looking at the cost of a whole roll out like it is one project. It won't be. We're talking about thousands of small companies all exploiting local markets to deliver superior service in their area. You say "but it is redundant"... so is your pizza maker... I'm sure there are multiple pizza people in your area. Yet many of them saturate the same market. Starbucks goes so far as to put coffee shops on adjoining corners.
You say we've wired the country twice like that is a lot. We can wire them over and over again. And if the consumer is willing to switch to my service because I'm faster at a cheaper rate... then I win.
The cost of these things only sounds huge when you factor the whole country. A lot of people have a hard time with large numbers. Over a certain number things just turn into infinity. You have to appreciate that communications is a big industry. We spend about 75 billion dollars per year on video games. How many billions do we spend on cat food? So you say running cable is going to cost hundreds of billions? It doesn't matter so long as the market can finance it.
And I'm not suggesting public subsidies for this project. No cheap loans from the government. A guy will wake up one morning, figure out what it will cost to run a fiber optic cable from the trunk to his own substation in a given neighborhood, then what it will cost wire the first hundred houses or so. He'll canvas the neighborhood with some advertisements he made himself. And he'll knock on doors, leave fliers in mail boxes... and other small business stuff. And if he gets enough people in the area to commit to it, then he figures out his pay off time. Then it is just a matter of running that fiber optic cable. And again, fiber optic cable is cheap. And bam... he has a tiny ISP.
As to allowing other people to use the cable company's or phone company's cable...
No.
FUCK NO.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
NO.
Why? Because their cable is shit. And if you force me to use their shit copper cable than the best service I can provide is shit service.
So no.
It also does not create genuine competition because you're forcing me to use their shitty cable. The primary means of out competing these bastards will be running better cable. If I have to share their shit cable then how can I offer better service? They're also going to set the rates for use of their cable. Which means the labor etc for that is something I have to pay for... so if their labor policies are crap, I have to subsidize them. And beyond that, I'm funding my fucking competitor. No.
Not really, small towns might have on hub but medium to large cities have many. And there is not only no reason for them to be centralized but they're not centralized. In a small town if there were one connection through the trunk then you'd have just one there. But that only applies in that one case.
And even then the prices for back end bandwidth are far far cheaper. Current backbone network saturation is less than 30 percent. Lots of capacity. And the likes of L3 don't care who they connect to. They're very happy to sell connections to anyone that can pay and their fees are cheap.
Mostly a regulation issue. I mean, why do we only have 4 cell phone companies? Because those 4 bought all the spectrum and no one else can have it no matter whether those companies use it or not. So lets say you have a small town somewhere with no cell phone coverage at all... can you throw up your own tower? Be the cellphone provider of Bob's town? Nope. Can't do it. Federal law. Forbidden.
Absent that, you'd have lots of cell phone providers. Thousands. And while some people are going to offer up myopic technical problems like "how could all those things interact with each other"... roaming works right now between the major cell companies so long as your device is compatible with their frequency. So I see no reason why people couldn't roam amongst those providers. And here someone will say "the roaming fees are so high though"... yes, under the current system because there are only 4. If there were lots and they all had limited individual coverage and relied upon the coverage of the other companies to fill it out, the roaming fees would have to be something reasonable.
Everyone is so locked into these tautologies of "everything has to be this way because this is the way things are now"... I mean by that logic how did democracy happen? I mean, we have lords and kings and ladies and then suddenly some grubby peasants said "I'd rather rule myself, thanks"... Could you say, "democracy can't work because we don't have democracy right now?"... obviously not. And neither can you say that it wouldn't work with lots of companies simply because we don't have lots of companies. It is circular logic.
It isn't insane. We should have thousands of mom and pop ISPs. Run the cable in the city conduit/poll and pay whatever the fee is for leasing some space there.
Yes, it would be messy if there were a LOT of cable running there, but then the fees would pay for a conduit and it would all go underground.
We don't need these ISP monopolies. Open it up for competition. Then if the ISPs behave like assholes, you just go to a competitor offering you a better deal to get your business.
In my area there are two ISPs like in most of America. One for DSL and one for Cable. No one is allowed to run cable but the phone company and the cable company.
And that is why the speeds suck. If you could have someone else also allowed to run cable it would force the ISPs to compete or die.
It is funny, I'm having another conversation with a different AC in this thread, and your nonsense is proving me right again. I should link him to your post so he can see what I'm talking about.
I am pretty sure you're a different person because your sentence structure is different.
I could be wrong. You could be taking a cue from a previous post where I teased the guy for making it so obvious. But you sound different.
You're also being more polite and rational. The other guy basically just opens with an insult, makes no effort to make any sense, and then will just lie about stuff.
Also, your comment about ACs being more profitable is questionable. I was going to say it was tautology in that you're saying something is a certain way because it is that way. But actually I found a flaw in it... The most profitable sites on the internet do not have anonymous logins. So why would you think that this is an asset? I mean, what evidence of it? Facebook, reddit, disqus, Google anything... they all have logins and they're all way more successful then slashdot.
So that's another reason I think you're a different guy. You just made a falsifiable argument. That's a compliment by the way. That means your argument was rational even if I think it is wrong. It had the possibility at least of being right which is more than I can say for my shadow. You made an argument that was capable of being wrong. The other guy doesn't do that. He says stuff that you can't really argue against because it is too vague to really say anything about it one way or the other.
I literally dared him for a full week to just tell me what I did wrong in one post specifically. He outright refused until I gave up... after a week of trying. I mean, give me some credit for sticking with him that long. I eventually left the thread and he's been following me all over slashdot like bad gas ever since.:D
Why do I test something if I'm so certain? Well, you have that backwards. I am certain BECAUSE I test.
If I didn't test, then I couldn't legitimately be certain could I?
SCIENCE!:D
As to me being dead wrong, you still have yet to tell me anything I was actually wrong about. You made some very vague comments in the past, but as you'll remember, I challenged you every time to be specific and you were evasive for about a week. At which point I realized that you were never going to actually back your bullshit up and gave up.
And yet you're still presuming to judge anything. I mean, you have to know what a falsifiable argument is because I've explained it to you a few times.
I'll do it again, because you're stupid. A falsifiable argument is an argument that is CAPABLE of being wrong. All logical arguments have to be falsifiable or they're tautology or circular logic. You were going on and on about how "you don't know what this thing means" but you've never defined what that thing means or why anything I said didn't back that up.
And when I stopped responding to you in that thread... you followed me all over the board to harass me with your bullshit.
I've got nothing to hide from you, chump. You're just debasing yourself by doing this... I doubt anyone else is watching this, but if they were, I really doubt I'd come out looking worse than you.
I'm very happy for them to read my past posts. I occasionally make mistakes, but I admit it when I do... and... meh.. go for it. I think I make a lot of good points and there are a lot of posts I'm quite proud of really.
I like that you just admitted I was right that you're stalking me though.:D
You're so stupid. If I were you, I'd take on different personas so as to imply that I was multiple people and not just the same pathetic douche bag.
But you're not that smart... so oh wells.
I am sort of impressed by how aspergers furious you are with me though. Most trolls lose interest after a day or so. But you've been trolling me for a solid two weeks or so. That's rare and I'm not doing anything differently... so that's you.
Since you're not going to go away, I might as well get to know you. tell me something about yourself. If you're going to have a shitty neighbor, you should at least invite him over for BBQ a couple times to see if under his bullshit he's a relatable human being... right?
I'd like to introduce everyone to my shadow. This AC has been following me around for weeks at this point. Every thread I post in, he can be relied to make some dumb comments. At one point I thought it could be a couple different people. But its just the same guy.:D
And he thinks he's belittling me even though he's going out of his way to find any thread I'm posting in... it is sort of adorable in that tiny dog that yaps in an adorable way... but then won't shut up sort of way.
Anywho, don't mind him. It is just what he does.
On a related note, can anyone give me a good reason for why ACs exist at all on this forum? I mean, why? We're not using our real names anyway. Why let people make anonymous comments? Its like three layers of anonymity and if one layer brings out the stupid asshole, you can see what three layers does.:D
As to my impressions, I've read your media for many years. We'll just leave that there.
As to ignoring your points, no I'm not ignoring your points. My points are just not 180 degrees from your points. I don't need to either adopt your point or adopt the exact opposite point. You can't control my position. You can't determine what my point has to be simply by making your own point.
You say boys do better in a mixed environment? I have no stats on that what so ever. What I do know, that the new feminized system is hurting boys. You say they'd be better in a mixed environment? Well, understand that any mixed environment is going to be a feminized environment in the 21st century. That's just a given. You are not going to get a more male friendly environment in the 21st century in this political climate. The only chance the boys stand is getting their own space where they can't legitimately be policed to make things easier for girls because there are no girls there at all.
So on that basis, my solution is superior. If your stats are correct, then my solution might not be ideal... but let us not make the "perfect the enemy of the good". A segregated situation would alleviate most of the problem. And I am totally unaware of your mixed class room stats so for all I know those are bogus as well since you've bought into some other stats that were also bogus... no offense. I mean bogus by the way in that you've read things into the stats that are not there.
As to your assertion that you didn't conflate class and sex. That is the only way you could make the argument that having equal numbers of people in various states is not equality.
You're saying that it is equality for women to have a high status job like some percentage of men but not equality for women to be homeless like a lot of men. Equality is a double edged sword. In that context, it is not inequality to have equal numbers of women going to the electric chair. You can only call it inequality by conflating the point with class or social status. Which is an obvious logical error on your part.
In regards to your statement that they have not spiked in your media, I read your media. They have.
In regards to what is and is not anti male, the male achievement statistics are tanking under this regime. They were doing better previously. That is a matter of statistical record and not up for debate.
As to the answer to equality not being more inequality, you've confused yourself.
You've conflated equality between the sexes with equality between classes.
What one means by equality in each context is very different. If we had perfect equality between the sexes, then you should see the same number of women on death row as men. If we had class equality then you should see an equal number of people as CEOs as there are people living on the street... or you'd see everyone with exactly the same amount of money, power, and social status.
Neither kind of equality is possible in the real world and neither kind is really desirable or reasonable.
The point is that if you ask for equality between the SEXES that means you are comparing ALL men against ALL women. That means you've got to factor the men that die in wars or live on the street or fight in a war only to live on the street. If you don't do that when you're doing your little comparison then your comparison is biased by definition.
What tends to be the whine is that there are not as many women in certain high status/high pay jobs as some women that generally don't work in those positions would like. And that's fine. However, if you want to talk about equality between the sexes, then you're not going to pick and choose who gets compared in the sexes.
When you compare the sexes you're comparing ALL men against ALL women. You want to limit it to scientists or CEOs? How is that even possible? How many female CEOs are not permitted to be CEOs? By definition all of them have to have been CEOs at some point or they wouldn't be female CEOs. You can't talk about all the women that weren't picked to be CEO without involving some larger nebulous group and that just makes everything horribly muddied.
Again. this is the recurring problem here. You are not taking the literal logic seriously enough and you are making silly logical errors.
That last error conflating classes with sex was typical of what has been going on here. This is not to offend. It is just not possible to logically analyze these issues unless you analyze things with a bit more seriousness. You're making silly errors that will turn any conclusion into garbage.
No, I'm accusing you of being biased. Again with the strawmen.
Wikipedia actually cites other articles where other people are saying despite CNN being okay with it, that it is still not okay... and the whole situation speaks poorly to CNN's ethics.
That was cited in a couple of the links I sent you.
Look, you're not being reasonable or rational. You seem to think that being stubborn is the same thing as having a point. And even when you're given links that contradict you... all I get out of you is evasion and denial.
And you ignored the other sources I provided that said that conclusion was a travesty.
I could have cherry picked the sources so it only supported my position. Instead, I showed it all to you so that you were aware of the whole situation.
The man is clearly tarnished. And regardless, I did not base my conclusions or arguments on that fact.
Your endless attempts to strawman me on this issue have grown tedious.
Either learn that strawmen are not acceptable arguments or shut the fuck up.
I may have "triggered" you, but it was not an inaccurate statement that did that.
As to things crossing the pond, we share a highly interconnected media and political system. These articles have spiked in your own media as well largely in sympathy with the US media response. Whether we even have distinct cultures at a certain point will be debatable. Any difference you point at between yourselves and us may well be less than the cultural differences between various parts of the US. Consider the deep south versus a place like new york or san francisco. Very different cultures and yet the same country.
You can find other examples of something becoming a media sensation in the US and then spreading to associated cultures.
We are more one than you realize. This conversation you and I are having right now is further evidence of it.
I read your newspapers. You likely read US media. Would it be surprising to you if UK journalists read US journalists and vice versa? Because they do.
There is much the same between London and New York.
If you wish to look at political interconnections, I would direct you at various political organizations in the US that routinely invite similar political figures from the UK to speak or debate. I can't speak to whether organizations in the UK do the same thing for US political figures, but I assume the likes of Bill Clinton etc has gotten around in the UK.
The world shrinks, does it not?
In regards to hard evidence, you find so little of it because the only people still talking about it are political hacks. As I said, the "data" angle was settled in the 1970s. Everything after that has mostly been hamming it up for the idiots.
As to hiring someone without knowing qualifications... you'd have to focus on really low level entry level jobs for that. I struggle to think of any job where they really don't care. The people that don't ask for resumes tend to like to have an interview at the very least.
Here are a couple jobs that do blind hires in the US... Manual labor... typically illegal manual labor. And I think meat packing plants especially for chicken tend to use similar types of labor. That kind of thing is kept as casual as possible because any kind of formal process is a liability if you're audited. The best defense in such situations is "I didn't know"... and the only way to not know is to not check.
In regards to primary school teachers, there has been a big push as well to "feminize" education. that is structure the education around social patterns that girls find more inviting. The consequence is that these patterns are generally alienating to boys.
I think a more reasonable solution would be to segregate the sexes until college. Not socially of course but give them different classes. You could even have them in the same building if you really wanted to but the nature of the classes should be tailored to the way each sex thinks.
We are sexually dimorphic and it isn't just externally. We are neurologically different. That is a neurological fact. And note, I am not saying either one is superior to the other, however we do have different temperaments and if you want to get the best out of little boys you're going to have to structure the class differently than if you want the best out of little girls.
The statistics on that are quite evident. The decline in male performance in US schools correlates quite well with the push to feminize the social structure.
And note that despite boys performing worse in US schools than girls, despite fewer boys graduating high school or getting college educations... what are we subjected to by these political hacks? More bullshit about how we need to help girls out.
Why? Because they're not equally represented in the halls of power and boardrooms. Never mind that they're not equally represented on street corners picking food out of trash cans either. Never mind that women are not equally represented on death row waiting to ride the lightning.
In regards to moral crusading, there is no other motivation for you to behave in the way you are behaving. Contradict me. I perceive an ideological investment and that is problematic.
In regards to the only difference being years on the job, all but two percent of the wage gap vanishes when you exclude women that have had children. That has been known since the 1970s when this wage gap crap was first pushed. The "wage gap" was almost instantly debunked but it is trotted out whenever various political elements find it to be politically useful.
Hillary Clinton is likely to run for a presidential election, so much of this is being driven a precursor to her presidential run. We're seeing far greater activity from politically connected women's groups as well as endless articles in the newspapers etc which are all related to this issue.
Here you will claim I am spinning conspiracies only a conspiracy is not required. They don't need to have a big meeting and decide this together. The winds change and they go with the winds.
Her presidential bid, if successful will mean we'll probably be subjected to more of this biased idiocy for years as a means to bolster her political support, suppress political opponents, capitalize on her power, etc. The reasons for it are legion. If her bid fails, then after a bitter condemnation of anyone that didn't vote for her as a sexist... it should calm down again.
That is what we're dealing with... the endless gender articles that have cropped up in the last year or so are not a coincidence.
The "wage gap" was debunked. A 2 percent wage gap which is what is left after you exclude women with children is so small as to not worry much about. Though even that can be explained by a host of other factors. Once you've dealt with those, you might even argue that women are over paid not under paid... issues like "over work' which is a male phenomenon of working beyond the normal number of hours. Taking work home, etc. And men do that with greater frequency than women. Many other issues. Men tend to take more dangerous jobs, tend to take more socially isolating jobs... and those jobs being dangerous and socially isolating have fewer people trying to get them and so the wages paid for that are higher.
It depends on how you factor the statistics.
Most wage gap statistics just look at what people take in college, see if they're employed, and then average their salaries on that basis. They often don't even factor which industries they're in or bother to figure out what jobs they perform in those industries. The stats on this tend to be politically motivated instead of actually interested in what is going on.
We both know there is such a thing as a biased study or a study set up to conclude a predefined conclusion for a political gain. It should not surprise you that some of these studies are just that.
As to no one making blind hires, your study had people making blind hires. They got some boiler plate resume along with a name that inferred a gender. I doubt they said "man" or "woman" on the thing... it was more that it said my name is "tom" or "janet". There were no interviews in your study. Just a resume for a fake person. And a resume doesn't really tell you what your personality type is... does it?
As to your notion that this is not an issue of anti female bias but an issue of people assuming that whatever is prevalent in the area is inherently superior by its very prevalence.... that would imply that this is equally a problem in any female dominated profession?
To demonstrate that this is not a political or moral crusade, I'd appreciate equality of interest and enforcement in those areas thus as you encourage businesses that hire more men to hire more women, encourage businesses that hire more women to hire more men.
In this you would have a more equal and less biased interest in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant the "conduit" would not need to change. Not the cable. The cable obviously needs to change with some frequency. But the conduit so long as it was large enough could remain the same for hundreds of years.
1. No the cable wouldn't need to change. The British are currently running fiber through Victorian sewer pipes. So... no. The conduit doesn't need to change. All it needs is enough space in it. That's it. So the only thing that could happen is that the could run out of room. But that is something you could upgrade the next time you do road maintenance.
2. As to the government not needing to do the innovation, they would need to approve things.
Look, the government providing my internet access is a non-starter. You've seen all the privacy abuse stuff they've done already. If they actually own the cables it will be even worse. And that is just ONE reason amongst many. It is a bad idea.
No.
As to letting each person run cable, I'm not saying that 10 million people run cable. I'm saying that you let small ISPs run the cable if they pay the conduit fee.
There is always this notion that anything but the government controlling it means chaos. Give me a break.
As to the government not running the internet but running the cable... the cable determines the bandwidth and much of the quality of service. So no.
The government can own and run the pipe the cable runs in... that's it. I'm not trusting them with anything beyond that.
The ADA is horribly abused and has been a gold mine for slimy trial lawyers for years.
So many of their rules are stupid. Take ramps for example, the rules are TWELVE FEET of distance for every FOOT of rise. That's 1/12... By this logic, half the streets in san francisco are in violation of the ADA... that is the fucking hills have grades that are steeper than that. It is stupid.
The ADA should generally be repealed. Most businesses want customers disabled or otherwise to feel comfortable there and use their services. That alone should be enough to see that most things are accessible. Yes, seriously disabled people are going to need help. Let us not pretend that if we cover the world with ramps that such people can live on their own without assistance. Who bathes them etc? And here you might sight some fellow that winches himself into the tub with pullies. Any such fellow isn't going to need a 1/12 ramp to get into a shop.
Being disabled sucks. But being disabled is not a license to force everyone in the rest of society to cover the world in bubblewrap.
I don't mind them providing the conduit. I do mind them providing the cable. the cable you must appreciate will change. there will be innovation.
it isn't like water or power or roads.
Road technology hasn't change much in the last 100 years. If your car had to drive on a paved road build to 19th century standards, it wouldn't be a big deal. They had asphalt back then.
Water is water is water. The fucking Romans could pipe water to your house and it would be about as good as what you get from the city. The biggest difference is that the water pressure would be a lot lower. But otherwise, it would be the same. All you would have to do to compensate would be to have a water tank over your house to pressurize the water. That's it.
Electricity hasn't change remarkably in the last 100 years. If I wired your house to the standards of 1910, you might have issues with some high voltage appliances but otherwise you'd mostly be fine especially if you had some surge protectors or some UPSs.
Network cable however is a moving target. It has changed remarkably in just the last 10 years to say nothing of the last 100. So no, I don't want to give it to the government because I'm pretty sure they'll sit on their asses once they get it working. It is generally what they do.
I do trust them to run a conduit though. It is just a pipe. Conduit technology hasn't changed remarkably in thousands of years. So... totally fine with them running the conduit. But not the cable.
That has to be private. I also question whether they'll offer the service at a competitive rate. Often government services only seem cheap because they're taking lots of money from someone else and charging you less. But the actual average fee is quite a bit higher than you'd imagine.
I'd also direct you to pot holes, spotting education systems, spotty police services, and other issues that the government has been doing a bad job at running lately. Here is my biggest problem with government.
You can't fire them. Yes, you can have an election but that doesn't really trigger a clean sweep does it? No. All you can do is vote for the red team or the blue team. And most people will only vote for the red or the blue and never the other. And most areas are solid red or blue which means they can pretty much do whatever they want and they won't even lose an election much less strip them out of power.
Part of the issue is that the government is very much a "too big to fail" system. Everything is combined. So if I don't like my internet service which you want the government to run, does that mean I vote for another mayor even though the only thing the current mayor is bad at is running the communication service? See the issue?
I don't want them to run it. I am fine with them running the conduit but never the cable.
I have no problem with that. I really don't care who runs the thing so long as they don't fuck it up.
I'd love a company to do it as well. Because you can fire a company. Can't fire government. :(
Okay, respectfully, you're citing problems that only exist because we don't have a system set up to handle all those companies.
Effectively, your argument is "we can't do this because we're not doing this".
I know that isn't how you see your argument. However, your "I don't want people digging up the street" comment only makes sense if you assume no one would work out a reasonable way to do it.
For example, conduits. You just have a pipe that goes down the side of the street with regular access points. No digging up the street after the conduit is in the ground. It sits there like a water pipe or a gas main and people can run new cable or remove old cable without damaging the street.
Okay? Not a big deal. you can run 20 different independent cable networks at once through the same conduit... no problem.
They each pay a fee. Have the conduit supplied by the city. I think that is a legitimate utility, the supply of conduits and polls. But the cable should be private because the cable changes. It is subject to technological advance in a way that water or power isn't quite so much. I mean, electricity is electricity. Water is water. But bandwidth is not bandwidth. There have been huge advances in communications cable. It used to all be copper wires and now it is fiber optic cable.
If I ran a new ISP, I'd run nothing but fiber optic cable. It is cheaper than other cables, is longer ranged, and has higher bandwidth. Anyone laying copper cables at this point is either trapped into some legacy bullshit or an idiot.
As to the cost, you're looking at the cost of a whole roll out like it is one project. It won't be. We're talking about thousands of small companies all exploiting local markets to deliver superior service in their area. You say "but it is redundant"... so is your pizza maker... I'm sure there are multiple pizza people in your area. Yet many of them saturate the same market. Starbucks goes so far as to put coffee shops on adjoining corners.
You say we've wired the country twice like that is a lot. We can wire them over and over again. And if the consumer is willing to switch to my service because I'm faster at a cheaper rate... then I win.
The cost of these things only sounds huge when you factor the whole country. A lot of people have a hard time with large numbers. Over a certain number things just turn into infinity. You have to appreciate that communications is a big industry. We spend about 75 billion dollars per year on video games. How many billions do we spend on cat food? So you say running cable is going to cost hundreds of billions? It doesn't matter so long as the market can finance it.
And I'm not suggesting public subsidies for this project. No cheap loans from the government. A guy will wake up one morning, figure out what it will cost to run a fiber optic cable from the trunk to his own substation in a given neighborhood, then what it will cost wire the first hundred houses or so. He'll canvas the neighborhood with some advertisements he made himself. And he'll knock on doors, leave fliers in mail boxes... and other small business stuff. And if he gets enough people in the area to commit to it, then he figures out his pay off time. Then it is just a matter of running that fiber optic cable. And again, fiber optic cable is cheap. And bam... he has a tiny ISP.
As to allowing other people to use the cable company's or phone company's cable...
No.
FUCK NO.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
NO.
Why? Because their cable is shit. And if you force me to use their shit copper cable than the best service I can provide is shit service.
So no.
It also does not create genuine competition because you're forcing me to use their shitty cable. The primary means of out competing these bastards will be running better cable. If I have to share their shit cable then how can I offer better service? They're also going to set the rates for use of their cable. Which means the labor etc for that is something I have to pay for... so if their labor policies are crap, I have to subsidize them. And beyond that, I'm funding my fucking competitor. No.
Not really, small towns might have on hub but medium to large cities have many. And there is not only no reason for them to be centralized but they're not centralized. In a small town if there were one connection through the trunk then you'd have just one there. But that only applies in that one case.
And even then the prices for back end bandwidth are far far cheaper. Current backbone network saturation is less than 30 percent. Lots of capacity. And the likes of L3 don't care who they connect to. They're very happy to sell connections to anyone that can pay and their fees are cheap.
Mostly a regulation issue. I mean, why do we only have 4 cell phone companies? Because those 4 bought all the spectrum and no one else can have it no matter whether those companies use it or not. So lets say you have a small town somewhere with no cell phone coverage at all... can you throw up your own tower? Be the cellphone provider of Bob's town? Nope. Can't do it. Federal law. Forbidden.
Absent that, you'd have lots of cell phone providers. Thousands. And while some people are going to offer up myopic technical problems like "how could all those things interact with each other"... roaming works right now between the major cell companies so long as your device is compatible with their frequency. So I see no reason why people couldn't roam amongst those providers. And here someone will say "the roaming fees are so high though"... yes, under the current system because there are only 4. If there were lots and they all had limited individual coverage and relied upon the coverage of the other companies to fill it out, the roaming fees would have to be something reasonable.
Everyone is so locked into these tautologies of "everything has to be this way because this is the way things are now"... I mean by that logic how did democracy happen? I mean, we have lords and kings and ladies and then suddenly some grubby peasants said "I'd rather rule myself, thanks"... Could you say, "democracy can't work because we don't have democracy right now?"... obviously not. And neither can you say that it wouldn't work with lots of companies simply because we don't have lots of companies. It is circular logic.
Don't blame me, I didn't ask for them to be cited as utilities. I've been saying they should let more people run cable for years. :)
What was the last bad point you saw me make... I could have a better idea as to the legitimacy of your point if you did that. :)
I make mistakes like everyone else. But on average I think I do quite well.
It isn't insane. We should have thousands of mom and pop ISPs. Run the cable in the city conduit/poll and pay whatever the fee is for leasing some space there.
Yes, it would be messy if there were a LOT of cable running there, but then the fees would pay for a conduit and it would all go underground.
We don't need these ISP monopolies. Open it up for competition. Then if the ISPs behave like assholes, you just go to a competitor offering you a better deal to get your business.
In my area there are two ISPs like in most of America. One for DSL and one for Cable. No one is allowed to run cable but the phone company and the cable company.
And that is why the speeds suck. If you could have someone else also allowed to run cable it would force the ISPs to compete or die.
Here is an example of the crap he sends me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Most recent post as of now. Imagine getting nothing but that for weeks.
I try telling jokes. I try to start up an intelligent conversation. I try just flaming him. Nothing works. He's like forum cancer. :P
He follows me from thread to thread and just spews bullshit at me. So yeah, he's kind of distinctive. :)
It is funny, I'm having another conversation with a different AC in this thread, and your nonsense is proving me right again. I should link him to your post so he can see what I'm talking about.
Thanks :)
I am pretty sure you're a different person because your sentence structure is different.
I could be wrong. You could be taking a cue from a previous post where I teased the guy for making it so obvious. But you sound different.
You're also being more polite and rational. The other guy basically just opens with an insult, makes no effort to make any sense, and then will just lie about stuff.
Also, your comment about ACs being more profitable is questionable. I was going to say it was tautology in that you're saying something is a certain way because it is that way. But actually I found a flaw in it... The most profitable sites on the internet do not have anonymous logins. So why would you think that this is an asset? I mean, what evidence of it? Facebook, reddit, disqus, Google anything... they all have logins and they're all way more successful then slashdot.
So that's another reason I think you're a different guy. You just made a falsifiable argument. That's a compliment by the way. That means your argument was rational even if I think it is wrong. It had the possibility at least of being right which is more than I can say for my shadow. You made an argument that was capable of being wrong. The other guy doesn't do that. He says stuff that you can't really argue against because it is too vague to really say anything about it one way or the other.
I literally dared him for a full week to just tell me what I did wrong in one post specifically. He outright refused until I gave up... after a week of trying. I mean, give me some credit for sticking with him that long. I eventually left the thread and he's been following me all over slashdot like bad gas ever since. :D
Why do I test something if I'm so certain? Well, you have that backwards. I am certain BECAUSE I test.
If I didn't test, then I couldn't legitimately be certain could I?
SCIENCE! :D
As to me being dead wrong, you still have yet to tell me anything I was actually wrong about. You made some very vague comments in the past, but as you'll remember, I challenged you every time to be specific and you were evasive for about a week. At which point I realized that you were never going to actually back your bullshit up and gave up.
And yet you're still presuming to judge anything. I mean, you have to know what a falsifiable argument is because I've explained it to you a few times.
I'll do it again, because you're stupid. A falsifiable argument is an argument that is CAPABLE of being wrong. All logical arguments have to be falsifiable or they're tautology or circular logic. You were going on and on about how "you don't know what this thing means" but you've never defined what that thing means or why anything I said didn't back that up.
And when I stopped responding to you in that thread... you followed me all over the board to harass me with your bullshit.
I've got nothing to hide from you, chump. You're just debasing yourself by doing this... I doubt anyone else is watching this, but if they were, I really doubt I'd come out looking worse than you.
Just saying... your e-stalking... its sad.
You should get e-help with that. :D
I'm very happy for them to read my past posts. I occasionally make mistakes, but I admit it when I do... and... meh.. go for it. I think I make a lot of good points and there are a lot of posts I'm quite proud of really.
I like that you just admitted I was right that you're stalking me though. :D
You're so stupid. If I were you, I'd take on different personas so as to imply that I was multiple people and not just the same pathetic douche bag.
But you're not that smart... so oh wells.
I am sort of impressed by how aspergers furious you are with me though. Most trolls lose interest after a day or so. But you've been trolling me for a solid two weeks or so. That's rare and I'm not doing anything differently... so that's you.
Since you're not going to go away, I might as well get to know you. tell me something about yourself. If you're going to have a shitty neighbor, you should at least invite him over for BBQ a couple times to see if under his bullshit he's a relatable human being... right?
*hands AC a cold beer*
So, talk to me. Tell me your story.
I'd like to introduce everyone to my shadow. This AC has been following me around for weeks at this point. Every thread I post in, he can be relied to make some dumb comments. At one point I thought it could be a couple different people. But its just the same guy. :D
And he thinks he's belittling me even though he's going out of his way to find any thread I'm posting in... it is sort of adorable in that tiny dog that yaps in an adorable way... but then won't shut up sort of way.
Anywho, don't mind him. It is just what he does.
On a related note, can anyone give me a good reason for why ACs exist at all on this forum? I mean, why? We're not using our real names anyway. Why let people make anonymous comments? Its like three layers of anonymity and if one layer brings out the stupid asshole, you can see what three layers does. :D
As to my impressions, I've read your media for many years. We'll just leave that there.
As to ignoring your points, no I'm not ignoring your points. My points are just not 180 degrees from your points. I don't need to either adopt your point or adopt the exact opposite point. You can't control my position. You can't determine what my point has to be simply by making your own point.
You say boys do better in a mixed environment? I have no stats on that what so ever. What I do know, that the new feminized system is hurting boys. You say they'd be better in a mixed environment? Well, understand that any mixed environment is going to be a feminized environment in the 21st century. That's just a given. You are not going to get a more male friendly environment in the 21st century in this political climate. The only chance the boys stand is getting their own space where they can't legitimately be policed to make things easier for girls because there are no girls there at all.
So on that basis, my solution is superior. If your stats are correct, then my solution might not be ideal... but let us not make the "perfect the enemy of the good". A segregated situation would alleviate most of the problem. And I am totally unaware of your mixed class room stats so for all I know those are bogus as well since you've bought into some other stats that were also bogus... no offense. I mean bogus by the way in that you've read things into the stats that are not there.
As to your assertion that you didn't conflate class and sex. That is the only way you could make the argument that having equal numbers of people in various states is not equality.
You're saying that it is equality for women to have a high status job like some percentage of men but not equality for women to be homeless like a lot of men. Equality is a double edged sword. In that context, it is not inequality to have equal numbers of women going to the electric chair. You can only call it inequality by conflating the point with class or social status. Which is an obvious logical error on your part.
In regards to your statement that they have not spiked in your media, I read your media. They have.
In regards to what is and is not anti male, the male achievement statistics are tanking under this regime. They were doing better previously. That is a matter of statistical record and not up for debate.
As to the answer to equality not being more inequality, you've confused yourself.
You've conflated equality between the sexes with equality between classes.
What one means by equality in each context is very different. If we had perfect equality between the sexes, then you should see the same number of women on death row as men. If we had class equality then you should see an equal number of people as CEOs as there are people living on the street... or you'd see everyone with exactly the same amount of money, power, and social status.
Neither kind of equality is possible in the real world and neither kind is really desirable or reasonable.
The point is that if you ask for equality between the SEXES that means you are comparing ALL men against ALL women. That means you've got to factor the men that die in wars or live on the street or fight in a war only to live on the street. If you don't do that when you're doing your little comparison then your comparison is biased by definition.
What tends to be the whine is that there are not as many women in certain high status/high pay jobs as some women that generally don't work in those positions would like. And that's fine. However, if you want to talk about equality between the sexes, then you're not going to pick and choose who gets compared in the sexes.
When you compare the sexes you're comparing ALL men against ALL women. You want to limit it to scientists or CEOs? How is that even possible? How many female CEOs are not permitted to be CEOs? By definition all of them have to have been CEOs at some point or they wouldn't be female CEOs. You can't talk about all the women that weren't picked to be CEO without involving some larger nebulous group and that just makes everything horribly muddied.
Again. this is the recurring problem here. You are not taking the literal logic seriously enough and you are making silly logical errors.
That last error conflating classes with sex was typical of what has been going on here. This is not to offend. It is just not possible to logically analyze these issues unless you analyze things with a bit more seriousness. You're making silly errors that will turn any conclusion into garbage.
People always think they're smarter than they other... other people that is... I'm infallible.
No, I'm accusing you of being biased. Again with the strawmen.
Wikipedia actually cites other articles where other people are saying despite CNN being okay with it, that it is still not okay... and the whole situation speaks poorly to CNN's ethics.
That was cited in a couple of the links I sent you.
Look, you're not being reasonable or rational. You seem to think that being stubborn is the same thing as having a point. And even when you're given links that contradict you... all I get out of you is evasion and denial.
So... seriously... fuck off.
And you ignored the other sources I provided that said that conclusion was a travesty.
I could have cherry picked the sources so it only supported my position. Instead, I showed it all to you so that you were aware of the whole situation.
The man is clearly tarnished. And regardless, I did not base my conclusions or arguments on that fact.
Your endless attempts to strawman me on this issue have grown tedious.
Either learn that strawmen are not acceptable arguments or shut the fuck up.
I may have "triggered" you, but it was not an inaccurate statement that did that.
As to things crossing the pond, we share a highly interconnected media and political system. These articles have spiked in your own media as well largely in sympathy with the US media response. Whether we even have distinct cultures at a certain point will be debatable. Any difference you point at between yourselves and us may well be less than the cultural differences between various parts of the US. Consider the deep south versus a place like new york or san francisco. Very different cultures and yet the same country.
You can find other examples of something becoming a media sensation in the US and then spreading to associated cultures.
We are more one than you realize. This conversation you and I are having right now is further evidence of it.
I read your newspapers. You likely read US media. Would it be surprising to you if UK journalists read US journalists and vice versa? Because they do.
There is much the same between London and New York.
If you wish to look at political interconnections, I would direct you at various political organizations in the US that routinely invite similar political figures from the UK to speak or debate. I can't speak to whether organizations in the UK do the same thing for US political figures, but I assume the likes of Bill Clinton etc has gotten around in the UK.
The world shrinks, does it not?
In regards to hard evidence, you find so little of it because the only people still talking about it are political hacks. As I said, the "data" angle was settled in the 1970s. Everything after that has mostly been hamming it up for the idiots.
As to hiring someone without knowing qualifications... you'd have to focus on really low level entry level jobs for that. I struggle to think of any job where they really don't care. The people that don't ask for resumes tend to like to have an interview at the very least.
Here are a couple jobs that do blind hires in the US... Manual labor... typically illegal manual labor. And I think meat packing plants especially for chicken tend to use similar types of labor. That kind of thing is kept as casual as possible because any kind of formal process is a liability if you're audited. The best defense in such situations is "I didn't know"... and the only way to not know is to not check.
In regards to primary school teachers, there has been a big push as well to "feminize" education. that is structure the education around social patterns that girls find more inviting. The consequence is that these patterns are generally alienating to boys.
I think a more reasonable solution would be to segregate the sexes until college. Not socially of course but give them different classes. You could even have them in the same building if you really wanted to but the nature of the classes should be tailored to the way each sex thinks.
We are sexually dimorphic and it isn't just externally. We are neurologically different. That is a neurological fact. And note, I am not saying either one is superior to the other, however we do have different temperaments and if you want to get the best out of little boys you're going to have to structure the class differently than if you want the best out of little girls.
The statistics on that are quite evident. The decline in male performance in US schools correlates quite well with the push to feminize the social structure.
And note that despite boys performing worse in US schools than girls, despite fewer boys graduating high school or getting college educations... what are we subjected to by these political hacks? More bullshit about how we need to help girls out.
Why? Because they're not equally represented in the halls of power and boardrooms. Never mind that they're not equally represented on street corners picking food out of trash cans either. Never mind that women are not equally represented on death row waiting to ride the lightning.
Those that call
As to examples, your ignorance of common knowledge is not my problem. Look at his wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
http://www.poynter.org/news/me...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
There you go. Links. Suck it long. Suck it hard.
In regards to moral crusading, there is no other motivation for you to behave in the way you are behaving. Contradict me. I perceive an ideological investment and that is problematic.
In regards to the only difference being years on the job, all but two percent of the wage gap vanishes when you exclude women that have had children. That has been known since the 1970s when this wage gap crap was first pushed. The "wage gap" was almost instantly debunked but it is trotted out whenever various political elements find it to be politically useful.
Hillary Clinton is likely to run for a presidential election, so much of this is being driven a precursor to her presidential run. We're seeing far greater activity from politically connected women's groups as well as endless articles in the newspapers etc which are all related to this issue.
Here you will claim I am spinning conspiracies only a conspiracy is not required. They don't need to have a big meeting and decide this together. The winds change and they go with the winds.
Her presidential bid, if successful will mean we'll probably be subjected to more of this biased idiocy for years as a means to bolster her political support, suppress political opponents, capitalize on her power, etc. The reasons for it are legion. If her bid fails, then after a bitter condemnation of anyone that didn't vote for her as a sexist... it should calm down again.
That is what we're dealing with... the endless gender articles that have cropped up in the last year or so are not a coincidence.
The "wage gap" was debunked. A 2 percent wage gap which is what is left after you exclude women with children is so small as to not worry much about. Though even that can be explained by a host of other factors. Once you've dealt with those, you might even argue that women are over paid not under paid... issues like "over work' which is a male phenomenon of working beyond the normal number of hours. Taking work home, etc. And men do that with greater frequency than women. Many other issues. Men tend to take more dangerous jobs, tend to take more socially isolating jobs... and those jobs being dangerous and socially isolating have fewer people trying to get them and so the wages paid for that are higher.
It depends on how you factor the statistics.
Most wage gap statistics just look at what people take in college, see if they're employed, and then average their salaries on that basis. They often don't even factor which industries they're in or bother to figure out what jobs they perform in those industries. The stats on this tend to be politically motivated instead of actually interested in what is going on.
We both know there is such a thing as a biased study or a study set up to conclude a predefined conclusion for a political gain. It should not surprise you that some of these studies are just that.
As to no one making blind hires, your study had people making blind hires. They got some boiler plate resume along with a name that inferred a gender. I doubt they said "man" or "woman" on the thing... it was more that it said my name is "tom" or "janet". There were no interviews in your study. Just a resume for a fake person. And a resume doesn't really tell you what your personality type is... does it?
As to your notion that this is not an issue of anti female bias but an issue of people assuming that whatever is prevalent in the area is inherently superior by its very prevalence.... that would imply that this is equally a problem in any female dominated profession?
To demonstrate that this is not a political or moral crusade, I'd appreciate equality of interest and enforcement in those areas thus as you encourage businesses that hire more men to hire more women, encourage businesses that hire more women to hire more men.
In this you would have a more equal and less biased interest in the matter.